Emails May Be a Key to Addressing ‘Pay-to-Play’ Whispers at Clinton Foundation

There are not two Clinton controversies. There is one big, hairy deal.

Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
March 8, 2015, 10:37 a.m.

“Fol­low the money.” That apo­cryph­al phrase, at­trib­uted to Wa­ter­gate whistle-blower “Deep Throat,” ex­plains why the biggest threat to Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton’s pres­id­en­tial dreams is not her emails. It’s her fam­ily found­a­tion. That’s where the money is: cor­por­ate money, for­eign money, gobs of money slosh­ing around a van­ity char­ity that could be re­named “Clin­ton Con­flicts of In­terest Found­a­tion.”

What about the emails? Hil­lary Clin­ton’s secret com­mu­nic­a­tions cache is a bomb­shell de­serving of full dis­clos­ure be­cause of her as­sault on gov­ern­ment trans­par­ency and elec­tron­ic se­cur­ity. But its greatest rel­ev­ancy is what the emails might re­veal about any nex­us between Clin­ton’s work at State and dona­tions to the Bill, Hil­lary & Chelsea Clin­ton Found­a­tion from U.S. cor­por­a­tions and for­eign na­tions.

Un­der fire, Bill Clin­ton said his name­sake char­ity has “done a lot more good than harm”—hardly a ringing en­dorse­ment. One of his longest-serving ad­visers, a per­son who had worked dir­ectly for the found­a­tion, told me the “long­time whis­pers of pay-to-play are go­ing to be­come shouts.”

This per­son, a Clin­ton loy­al­ist and cred­ible source, has no evid­ence of wrong­do­ing but said the me­dia’s sus­pi­cions are war­ran­ted. “The emails are a re­lated but sec­ond­ary scan­dal,” the source said. “Fol­low the found­a­tion money.”

(RE­LATED: In Clin­ton Woes, Re­pub­lic­ans See Op­por­tun­ity—and Per­il)

Is the found­a­tion clean? Is it cor­rupt? Or is the truth in the muddy middle, where we so of­ten find the Clin­tons? Due to the fact that Hil­lary Clin­ton chose to skirt fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions and house her State De­part­ment emails on an off-the-books serv­er, even the most loy­al Demo­crat can’t hon­estly an­swer those ques­tions without an in­de­pend­ent vet­ting of her elec­tron­ic cor­res­pond­ence.

Without those emails, we may nev­er be able to fol­low the money. Could that be why she hasn’t coughed up the serv­er?

Dis­clos­ure: I’ve known and re­spec­ted the Clin­tons since the 1980s, when I covered state polit­ics for the Arkan­sas Demo­crat (now the Arkan­sas Demo­crat-Gaz­ette) and the As­so­ci­ated Press. Over the years, they’ve been kind to my fam­ily, and my ca­reer ob­vi­ously be­nefited from their rise. Of all the pub­lic ser­vants I’ve covered since mov­ing to Wash­ing­ton in 1993, none ap­proach the Clin­tons in terms of both strengths and weak­nesses. While I’ve nev­er called them cor­rupt (the White­wa­ter land deal was le­git­im­ate), I can tell you al­most 30 years of stor­ies about their en­ti­tle­ment, out­sized vic­tim­iz­a­tion, and an ag­grav­at­ing be­lief in the ends jus­ti­fy­ing the means.

(RE­LATED: Hil­lary Clin­ton Still Doesn’t Get It)

Which is why I wasn’t sur­prised when vet­er­an Clin­ton chron­icler Todd S. Purdum of Politco com­pared Hil­lary Clin­ton to Richard Nix­on.

Not even Clin­ton’s harshest crit­ics could claim that Server­gate (or Chap­paquadata, or whatever it may come to be called) con­sti­tutes a high crime or mis­de­mean­or. But it does con­note a re­flex­ive war­i­ness about her en­emies—a war­i­ness that some­times seems to bor­der on para­noia—that has long dogged Clin­ton, and that struck at least a few old Nix­on hands as fa­mil­i­ar “…

“There is, of course,” Purdum con­tin­ued, “a bit­ter para­dox in the fact that Clin­ton, as a young staffer on the House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee, ac­tu­ally worked on Nix­on’s im­peach­ment.”

I won­der what a young Hil­lary Clin­ton would think of a private char­ity run by a former U.S. pres­id­ent and a po­ten­tial fu­ture pres­id­ent that col­lec­ted hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars from coun­tries and com­pan­ies hop­ing to in­flu­ence the pair. Ac­tu­ally, I don’t won­der: She would think it smells.

And yet, a New York de­veloper donated $100,000 to the found­a­tion at about the same time Hil­lary Clin­ton helped se­cure mil­lions of dol­lars in fed­er­al as­sist­ance for the busi­ness­man’s mall pro­ject.

An aide close enough to Bill Clin­ton to be con­sidered a sur­rog­ate son, Doug Band, set up Teneo, a com­pany that New York Times colum­nist Maur­een Dowd calls “a scammy blend of cor­por­ate con­sult­ing, pub­lic re­la­tions, and mer­chant bank­ing.” Band re­cruited cli­ents from the found­a­tion donor list while en­cour­aging oth­ers to donate. “Its mar­ket­ing ma­ter­i­als high­lighted Mr. Band’s re­la­tion­ship with Mr. Clin­ton and the Clin­ton Glob­al Ini­ti­at­ive, where Mr. Band sat on the board of dir­ect­ors through 2011 and re­mains as an ad­visers,” ac­cord­ing to a 2013 New York Times ex­posé.

Money came in. Fa­vors went out. While there is no dir­ect evid­ence of quid pro quo, the found­a­tion and its name­sakes cre­ated this per­cep­tion prob­lem. They own it.

Bill Clin­ton noted Sat­urday that the found­a­tion dis­closes most of its dona­tions, a level of trans­par­ency bey­ond strict leg­al re­quire­ments. Nobody can ar­gue that the found­a­tion doesn’t save lives and do oth­er good deeds. “You’ve got to de­cide when you do this work, wheth­er it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from an­oth­er coun­try,” the former pres­id­ent said.

But there was a reas­on why the Obama White House asked the found­a­tion to stop tak­ing for­eign dona­tions while she served as sec­ret­ary of State. It looks un­eth­ic­al. It may be cor­rupt. And yet, shortly after she left the State De­part­ment to be­gin pres­id­en­tial plan­ning, the found­a­tion opened up the for­eign-money spig­ot.

It nev­er stopped tak­ing money from favored cor­por­a­tions, and re­cently it entered in­to part­ner­ships with “at least six banks that were un­der in­vest­ig­a­tion, in­volved in lit­ig­a­tion, or had been fined by gov­ern­ment agen­cies and reg­u­lat­ors,” ac­cord­ing to a CNN in­vest­ig­a­tion.

What did these com­pan­ies and coun­tries ex­pect in re­turn for their cash? Did the Clin­tons prom­ise any fa­vors? Those are fair ques­tions—not par­tis­an ques­tions and not me­dia “gotcha” ques­tions. The Clin­tons are re­spons­ible for the man­age­ment of their found­a­tion. Hil­lary Clin­ton is re­spons­ible for stash­ing her emails in a secret serv­er. She is run­ning for pres­id­ent. The rest of us should fol­low the money.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.